Contents

Capital punishment1

Euthanasia debate2

Abortion debate framing3

Ethics and right to life4

Juridical rhetoric5

See also6

References7

External links8

Capital punishment

Abolitionists believe capital punishment is a violation of the right to life. Abolitionists believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture.

Euthanasia debate

The entitlement of a person to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia is commonly called a right to choose,[1] while people who oppose the legalization of euthanasia are commonly referred to as the right-to-lifers.[2]

Abortion debate framing

The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law guidebook (2000) listing of abortion specifies the publication use of "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" and "abortion rights" instead of "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice", and advises avoiding the use of "abortionist" which "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions", in favor of using a term such as "abortion doctor" or "abortion practitioner".[3]

Pope Pius XII seated in the Sedia Gestatoria in 1939.

The term "right to life" is a rhetorical device used in the abortion debate by those who wish to outlaw the intentional termination of a pregnancy[4] and in the context of pregnancy, the term right to life was advanced by Pope Pius XII during a 1951 papal encyclical:

Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life… --- Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.[5]

In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States.[6] The National Right to Life Committee was funded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the Fr. James T. McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the Roman Catholic Church.

The human blastocyst has a diameter of about 0.1-0.2 mm and comprises 200-300 cells following rapid cell division.

Anti-abortion advocates argue that prenatal humans have the same fundamental "right to life" from the moment of conception that humans have after their birth. Although pro-life advocates accept that women have a right to bodily autonomy, they deny that right entitles the women to violate the prenatal "right to life", by having it killed. Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "right to life" believe abortion is morally unacceptable.

The term "right to choose" is a rhetorical device used in the abortion debate by abortion-rights proponents. Many abortion rights advocates argue that prenatal humans are or are not human persons and do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human. Another abortion rights argument posits that it is irrelevant whether prenatal humans do or do not have the same fundamental "right to life" as a mature human because a woman's right to Bodily integrity overrides any potential rights that the fetus may or may not have. Advocates of the "right to choose" may take either or both positions.

Generally speaking, those identifying themselves as "pro-choice" are advocates for legal elective abortion. At the same time, some advocates for legalized abortion state that they simply do not know for sure where in pregnancy life begins; then-SenatorBarack Obama took this view in the 2008 election.[9] Some biologists however, have determined that the properties of life emerge at the cellular level.[10] Other advocates have stated that they hold personal views against abortion but do not support putting those beliefs into law; then-SenatorJoe Biden took this view in the 2008 election.[11]

Ethics and right to life

Some utilitarian ethicists argue that the "right to life", where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species. The philosopher Peter Singer is a notable proponent of this argument. For Singer, the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. This extends the concept to non-human animals, such as other apes, but since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack this, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be "justified" (but are not obligatory) in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering, or if its parents didn't wish to raise it and no one desired to adopt it.[12]

Juridical rhetoric

In 1444, the Poljica Statute declared right to live "-for nothing existed since ever".[13]

In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Council of Europe, declaring a protected human right to life in Article 2. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self-defense, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw capital punishment except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council.

The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family[14] in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: "No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 21, though couched in negative language, confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights.[15]

^Solomon, Martha. "The Rhetoric of Right to Life: Beyond the Court's Decision" Paper presented at the Southern Speech Communication Association (Atlanta, Georgia, April 4–7, 1978)

^"Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession", 29 October 1951. Pope Pius XII.

^http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=GPS&userGroupName=tel_s_tsla&tabID=T002&searchId=R3&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=10&contentSet=GALE%7CA262387307&&docId=GALE|A262387307&docType=GALE&role=ITOF&docLevel=FULLTEXT "The national right to life committee: its founding, its history, and the emergence of the pro-life movement prior to Roe v. Wade". Robert N. Karrier. The Catholic Historical Review. 97.3 (July 2011): p527. From General OneFile.

Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations

Article 30:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.

Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.